If you act like a christian or a conservative, you are welcome to speak your mind. If you act like a RWNJ, an MRA, a Klansman, a denier of rights to the LGBTQ community, or an adherent to the tenets of the WBC, then yeah, I freely admit that I do not tolerate you, so STFU.

You mean: if you agree with me, then I allow you to call yourself conservative. If you don’t agree with me, you’re nazi then STFU. Very clever. But the first amendment is independent of your feelings. You’ve called me a Nazi here, which means by your standards I can be censored.

I have never called you s Nazi, though I can understand why a loud-mouthed asshole who excoriates those who advocate for human rights and chooses a German appellation for himself might be condidered to be, at the very least, a Nazi sympathizer to some.

While in Germany the name “Hein”, a short version for Heinrich, used in the northern parts, is widely associated with someone who is not the brightest, in short: an idiot. The name is also common in the Netherlands.

I don’t know why you half-wits are so insistent in lumping the bigot contingent in with decent conservatives and religious people, or so persistent in your goal of having us tolerate them, but I refuse to believe that all conservatives and people of faith are indeed bigots. I will not, however, tolerate bigots.

this is what is wrong with politics today. Hypocrisy These goofy right wingers, whine whine whine about christianity, snivel whine some more, then are outraged when their belief in imaginary people in the sky is fought , because they insist on making this superstition law. When they are told to keep politics and religion separate , it is an attack on their religion. So one group who espouses free speech wants violent, revolting, disgusting, disturbing people to be stopped peddling their sick views on race and religion. Somehow this is against the constitution (rant all you want, free to do so any time, except in a public forum paid with public funds. You are entitled to free speech, just not everywhere. And all the tries to force religious beliefs on all, (no abortions, anti gay etc) are non constitutional. If these sick right wingers want to snivel about the constitution, read it first, then make sure that you are not in contradiction.

The paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

The First Amendment only states that the government cannot jail you for what you say. It doesn’t mean that private individuals and organizations have to tolerate every brainfart that you release, or give you a platform for saying it.

People who want to say shitty things act as if the First Amendment is some kind of shield for them to dodge the consequences of saying shitty things. It isn’t. Not only are private individuals and organizations not bound by it, but there are limitations to rights and this one is no excuse. It is illegal to yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater or otherwise incite a panic. It is illegal to lie under oath. It is illegal to threaten to kill anyone under Secret Service protection (even if Trumpy is completely undeserving of such protection, he still managed to weasel his way into getting it… it’s just lasted longer than planned).

Getting banned from an online community for saying something blatantly racist is not a violation of your First Amendment rights. So, now that you’ve been stripped of your delusion that the First Amendment is an aegis for shitty speech, you might want to rethink opening your mouth and letting shit drop out.

#releasethememo? It also states you can’t shutdown anybody in public space, you can’t threat people due to political ideology, you can threat people in federal territory, etc. 1st amendment is the opposite of what far left does, that may help you to understand.